Enhanced Penalities for crimes?

This is a discussion on Enhanced Penalities for crimes? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Quote
"I truly think many of the folks who object to enhancements for hate crimes secretly hold the hate, but are too embarrassed or cowardly ...

Quote
"I truly think many of the folks who object to enhancements for hate crimes secretly hold the hate, but are too embarrassed or cowardly to say so openly. Others just don't realize the implications, or fail to comprehend that we can not have a utopian society."

I agree. It usually starts with " I'm not racist but....."

I also agree that we should punish violence against Law Enforcement more harshly . It's the last thing that keeps society civilized.

The term "hate crime" is a real misnomer. I would argue that most cases of a violent premeditated criminal act on another are based on hate. If a white guy shoots another white guy(not a self defence case), chances are pretty good that there was some hate between them. Its the same if someone of one race shoots someone of another race. It seems that the race, sexuality, religion, etc. would be the motivation for the hate, not the actual crime itself. The extra punishment for a "hate crime" is just a way to punish peoples prejudices, not really the crime itself.

I truly think many of the folks who object to enhancements for hate crimes secretly hold the hate, but are too embarrassed or cowardly to say so openly. Others just don't realize the implications, or fail to comprehend that we can not have a utopian society.

Is that what you really think?
That is pretty insulting to those that are smart enough to figure it out, which are obviously in the minority.

Most of the people that I associate with would give you the shirt off their back if they thought that you needed it, and the only qualifying factor is that you be human. Most of them think that "hate" crimes are nothing more than a liberal fabrication and that if the law were enforced properly there would be no need for such things. A crime is a crime. Adding a label to it to make it worse is a ridiculous proposition that has only occured in the last couple of decades.

I'm really sorry you that you feel that way, painting most people with such a broad brush just because you think that a hate crime is a worse crime than the crime itself. That comment actually reminds me of the mindset of some of the skinheads that I deal with occasionally.They'll tell you that they arent racist, but in reality they hate everybody.

This "hate crime" crap is a testament to the weenification of America that has occured. It seems to be working rather well.

The rest of your post Sixto

Originally Posted by SIXTO

Yes it is, read the rest of my post.

The rest of your post was a comment that officers don't ask for or receive special treatment. Maybe. But the fact is that in many jurisdictions assaulting an officer or a corrections officer carries a higher penalty than assaulting someone else. Similarly, in many jurisdictions harming an elderly person carries a higher penalty.

I happen to think that is the way it should be. Someone who would assault you is a danger to all of us.

Attention MN concealed carriers!!!

In the recent months, I was arrested for dwi in the minneapolis area with my weapon in my vehicle. Without getting into detail, im more ashamed of violating the publics trust with a firearm than driving under the influence, which is a close second. There is no excuse for my poor decisions, but in the recent court precedings, i was more concerned with losing the privelidge to defend myself in public than being convicted of the of a 4th dg DWI.
as negions proceeded in my case, Hennepin county Prosecutor, Mr Daly, made the shameless, warrentless, and treacherous demand that I surrendor my weapon despite the statutory defenses that prohibit a legally registered weapon be forfieted unless used to progress a vilent act. With out hesitation, I informed Mr. Daly of the MN statute regarding this issue, along with pleading my 2nd amendment protections to the judge. Mr. Daly cowered like the spineless,liberal traitor he is, and withdrew his charges all together regarding my weapon and any disposition that would be forwarded to the hennepin county sherrif regarding my permit.
Long story short, my rights and all of ours are being assaulted on a daily basis at the whim of shameless statist'sthat crave the power over the common citizen who cherishes every freedom bestowed on them by the Constitution of the United States of America. These individuals must be removed from the positions given to in order to preserve the justice system that they were sworn to protect and uphold in order for it to survive. I have never been particularly passionate of the 2nd amendment until now, until I saw such a shameless attempt to route my civil liberties.
Mr. Daly, you are not worthy of the paper your law degree is printed on as you clearly do not hold the interests of the American people. Do the citizens of Minnesota a favor and never represent the state ever again. For those of you who may hold it against me for driving under the influence with my weapon, I humbly seek your forgiveness. It was a terrible mistake that was made, but for this mistake I learned just how valuable our rights are as concealed weapon carriers and will never violate this EVER AGAIN. I have learned that I am not the only one in this position. I dont know your situation nor the circumstances of running a fowl of the law, though you must fight every attempt by those who pose as councel for our great state who want nothing more than to make you an example to those who dont want us to defend ourselves.
The assault on our civil liberties has begun. take a stand with me.

Look guys, there is no question that some violent crime is deliberately targeted against certain classes of people. That might be the elderly, it might christians of a particular denomination, it might be that skin color or politics is the motive.

Most crimes are motivated by greed and by simple stupidity. A hate crime is different. It is a crime which would not happen if the victim were not a member of a particular group.

Society has properly determined that it will punish crimes motivated by hate harshly. Society has determined that it will punish crimes against the elderly or children harshly. Or crimes committed against officers in the performance of their duty harshly.

THere is nothing wrong with drawing these distinctions. That is how society lets its members know what is and isn't going to be tolerated.

Well off topic---

Originally Posted by xsigma40cal

In the recent months, I was arrested for dwi in the minneapolis area with my weapon in my vehicle.
Long story short, my rights and all of ours are being assaulted on a daily basis at the whim of shameless statist'sthat crave the power over the common citizen who cherishes every freedom bestowed on them by the Constitution of the United States of America.
The assault on our civil liberties has begun. take a stand with me.

In other words you irresponsibly broke the law by driving drunk and now you want to cry that your civil liberties are being taken because you were charged and vigorously prosecuted. You attack the prosecutor who was doing his job.

I would have to disagree Hopyard. Any violent crime committed is due to hate of one type or another. For example, a guy that kills another guy that is sleeping with his wife? Don't you think he has hate in his heart?

All hate crime laws do is divide and separate us into groups when we should be striving for complete equality. How will we ever get past racism when it is being legislated by our government?

Too often these "hate crimes" are really caused by something other than racism, but racism rears it's ugly head during the subsequent trial. IMO if we have stiffer penalties for hate crimes, it needs to be applied evenly. How can the Jena 6 or this new group of thugs in Anchorage not be charged with hate crimes? Oh yeah, only heterosexual caucasian males can be racist.

My whole point is that if ALL crimes were dealt with severely there would be disincentives across the board. I'm afraid that would not satisfy the groups that will always want extra. I suppose we have to lower the protection for group A inorder to look tougher for group B.

One little note since LEO's were mentioned; They don't get nor ask for special treatment.

Yes, the penalty will be stiffer if you assault, injure or kill recklessly or intentionallya LEO during the performance or because of his duties
That is the way it should be.

This is how it all starts.

or because of his duties
or because of his skin color
or because of his religion
or because of his sexual preferences
or because of his political views
or because he is a Texas University fan instead of OU

If a perp kills a store clerk he should be executed. If he kills a cop you want him killed twice?

I truly think many of the folks who object to enhancements for hate crimes secretly hold the hate, but are too embarrassed or cowardly to say so openly. Others just don't realize the implications, or fail to comprehend that we can not have a utopian society.

HotGuns addressed this well but I have a slightly different persepctive.

Our nation was built upon the notion that all men are created equal. There are pockets of people that do not believe that but it is clearly and obviously the truth.

The notion of hate crimes is the intent to create classes of victims. This has been the liberal agenda since they determined that socialism and redistribtion of wealth would be their goal rather than the classic liberal ideaology, which celebrated individualism and personal responsibility.

The notion of hate crimes is the same mindset that thinks bringing up the fact that Michael Jackson slept with little boys is racist. It is the same mindset that disagreeing with Soetoro's policies is racist. Remember when Garafalo publicly proclaimed that anyone attending a 'tea party' was a racist.

In today's society, there is a great advantage to being a member of a 'protected class', a ridiculous designation that has no place in society. So, the blacks claim aggrieved status, the homos claim aggrieved status, the handicapped claim aggrieved status. Why? To gain favor (and handouts) with the government. Hate crimes, affirmative action, reparations, is a liberal nonsense in an effort to extort money and privileges to minorities. What happens when Christian, white men are a minority in the United States? Who will liberals direct their anger against then?

The motive of a crime is irrelevant. Fire a gun into the air on New Years's as a celebration with no ill intent will get you a prison sentence in Arizona. Motive only establishes a crime may have been committed. Enhanced penalities (for hate) is no more a deterrent than telling a criminal no guns are allowed. It is simply political, class/race warfare nonsense and has no place in the United States of America.

Enhancement based on circumstances of the crime

Originally Posted by morintp

I would have to disagree Hopyard. Any violent crime committed is due to hate of one type or another. For example, a guy that kills another guy that is sleeping with his wife? Don't you think he has hate in his heart?

All hate crime laws do is divide and separate us into groups when we should be striving for complete equality. How will we ever get past racism when it is being legislated by our government?

Too often these "hate crimes" are really caused by something other than racism, but racism rears it's ugly head during the subsequent trial. IMO if we have stiffer penalties for hate crimes, it needs to be applied evenly. How can the Jena 6 or this new group of thugs in Anchorage not be charged with hate crimes? Oh yeah, only heterosexual caucasian males can be racist.

It is well established that we enhance penalties based on the circumstances of the crime. Was it done at night v during the day? Was it directed against an officer? Was a child or an unborn injured?
(e.g., here if you swipe something from my garage at night you might be looking at 99 years; do it in broad daylight and the penalty is much less harsh).

If you accept that society has a general right to tailor the punishment to the circumstances of the criminal act, then hate becomes a valid
enhancing circumstance.

Our country has an unfortunate history and we have a need to make it very clear that crimes motivated by hatred due to race, religion, national origin, (and now we are adding sexual orientation as well) are not going to be tolerated. We do this with enhanced punishment.

The enhancement can only be properly applied if the motive is hate.

Being an old dude, I like that the penalties are enhanced for anyone committing an assault on someone over 65. Though not probably a hate crime, an assault on the elderly deserves an enhanced penalty for both the cowardly nature of the choice of target and the greater likelihood of doing great bodily harm. I see nothing wrong with enhancing penalties for any reason the legislature deems necessary to maintain civil order.

The equal protection idea someone brought up doesn't fly because the legislature determined that crimes motivated by hate are different from other crimes. Anyone convicted of committing a hate crime faces the same range of punishment. That is the true meaning of equal protection.

IIf you accept that society has a general right to tailor the punishment to the circumstances of the criminal act, then hate becomes a valid enhancing circumstance.

And you PROVE that, how? Do you bring a psychic to deliver irrefutable testimony? It is objetive to determine night from day. It is discrimination to think some liberal can determine what is in the heart of a fellow citizen.

Our country has an unfortunate history and we have a need to make it very clear that crimes motivated by hatred due to race, religion, national origin, (and now we are adding sexual orientation as well) are not going to be tolerated. We do this with enhanced punishment.

And how do you PROVE the motivation? Notwithstanding it makes no difference why someone violates the law, exactly how can you determine what is in someone's heart. Their public statements?

The enhancement can only be properly applied if the motive is hate.

You mean if you BELIEVE that the motive is hate. Again, whay objective evidence do you have.

If I happen to be in an automobile accident with a libertarians, do you think I should be punished because I disagree with their views?

Being an old dude, I like that the penalties are enhanced for anyone committing an assault on someone over 65. Though not probably a hate crime, an assault on the elderly deserves an enhanced penalty for both the cowardly nature of the choice of target and the greater likelihood of doing great bodily harm. I see nothing wrong with enhancing penalties for any reason the legislature deems necessary to maintain civil order.[/QUOTE}

Since you think that enhanced penalities are a deterrent, then you certainly agree with the death penalty. Is that a correct assumption?

The equal protection idea someone brought up doesn't fly because the legislature determined that crimes motivated by hate are different from other crimes.

You cannot prove motivation. That is the problem. I think Obama's policies are damaging to the country. Am I a racist?

[QUOTE}Anyone convicted of committing a hate crime faces the same range of punishment. That is the true meaning of equal protection.